[Green] Fwd: Fusion ITER

[George Banziger]

Thanks, Lace

I checked with ReImagine Appalachia. The co-director there said that if
Kripachak advanced this idea, he would get a lot of push back (for reasons
I mentioned) as well as regulatory barriers.


George & Gwen Banziger; 740-434-5685; 740-434-3354 (mobile)


On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:28 AM Lace Lynch via Green <green at fuusm.org> wrote:

>
> I have known the administrator of this website for years. It pertains to
> the Farnsworth approach to Fusion
>
> There is a Forum to discuss Fusion and lots of unformation.
>
> Perhaps some may find this helpful.
>
> fusor.net
>
>
> Lace Lynch
>
>
> On Thursday, June 6, 2024 at 08:08:45 PM EDT, George Banziger via Green <
> green at fuusm.org> wrote:
>
>
> Fellow GSC members:
>
>     I have been having some dialogue with Democratic candidate for the
> OHIO 6 CD, Michel Kripchak. I did have some concerns about his promotion of
> fusion and ITER (international Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and sent
> my concerns to him.My comments/questions are in black, his responses in
> red. I am interested in what GSC members  think about his ideas of fusion
> to generate electricity and the use  of coal.
>
>
> George & Gwen Banziger; 740-434-5685; 740-434-3354 (mobile)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Michael Kripchak* <vote at kripchak.com>
> Date: Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Fusion ITER
> To: George Banziger <gbanziger497 at gmail.com>
>
>
> Mr. & Mrs. Banziger:
> Sir & Ma'am,
>
> I am happy to have shared it with you. No email from a constituent is
> "unsolicited." It is your duty to keep your elected officials accountable
> and I welcome it.
>
> Answers below in red:
>
>    I have looked over your document and done a bit of research myself.
> Please regard this unsolicited message as one coming from a non-expert and
> from a serious supporter of your candidacy for the OH6 congressional seat.
>
>      I learned from your document that fusion has a large energy density
> (compared to other sources and to fission technology.) and there is some
> research in the US (Oak Ridge TN) on this topic. in the "highlights"
> section did you  mean to indicate $32 billion in *1945*?
> No sir, The Manhattan Project cost $2B in1945 which is about $32B in
> today's dollars.
>
>       I have also picked up and generated some cautions and criticisms of
> this strategy:
>
>       -What is the role of coal, a fossil fuel, (dangerous to mine,
> expensive, and polluting) in your plan?
> Coal is only a fossil fuel if we burn it. I concede the danger of mining
> and general pollution that comes with it. No plan is ever 100% perfect. I'm
> not even saying we have to mine the coal. But using our coal legacy to get
> federal funds and attract S&T businesses to do the work here is a plan
> worth doing. I am open to other suggestions but this is "the first stake in
> the ground" if you will. Obviously, if we can get Congress fully on board,
> the details will be more flushed out with the experts at DoE, Academia, and
> Industry providing their inputs. I am but one man in a sea of experts who
> dedicated their professional lives to this cause.
>
> As for what coal can do: we can extract hydrogen (the main fuel source
> needed for fusion), we can create graphite (needed for Li-ion batteries),
> we can create graphene (next-gen power transmission lines), nanomaterial
> substrates (Carbon atom has 4 covalent bonds so it is super-versatile in
> chemical engineering applications), diamond vapor can be used for high
> thermal conductivity applications, we can extract hydrogen gas from coal
> which is an even better gaseous energy source than "natural gas"
> (chemically methane), we can also use coal to make ammonia cheaper for our
> farmers .
>
> This is all pretty wonkish and in the weeds so the umbrella term my
> campaign is calling this is "advanced carbonics" as a catch-all. Especially
> since if we talk to the scientists, they probably have a myriad other
> applications they can think of.
>
> Now the environmentalists who are uncompromising will say doing this from
> coal is not good for the environment either and we should use other
> technology. I will concede coal is not as clean but the point is to use
> this technology development in an iterative fashion. If we can do this with
> coal now, let's do it. Later on, when other technology matures, we can
> develop those too. The point is, coal is ready to help the green revolution
> so let's start the process now and not sit on our hands waiting for a
> miracle green tech to fall in our laps. That's not how technology
> development works - it's always iterative.
>
>        --Fusion technology seems relatively new and expensive, as it has
> rolled out in the project in southeastern France. Its effectiveness has not
> yet been demonstrated, as far as I can see..
> Fusion is hardly a mature technology and will require a heavy investment
> in science and engineering to mature it and commercialize it. This will not
> be a walk in the park, but neither was the atomic bomb in 1939 or the
> Apollo program in 1961. This work will require dedication and support from
> the federal government which will IMPORTANTLY bring high quality jobs to
> our district to make it happen. The economic activity is the "brass tax"
> that actually matters to the average voter.
>
> The reason we are focusing on this now is because Germany (arguably the
> leaders in this field) believe there has been sufficient SCIENTIFIC
> progress, to now dedicate a significant portion of their economy to the
> ENGINEERING progress. This means blue collar jobs and blue collar success.
> If Germany thinks the time is right to work this (even if it will take 20
> years) then we better listen. And if it takes 20 years, well that's 20
> years of economic activity guaranteed to flow into our district.
>
>        -Fusion seems to rely on combining deuterium and tritium, the
> latter of which seems to be in short supply.
> That is what the lithium blanket is for. As neutrons that naturally emit
> from the fusion process bombard the lithium blanket, they eject tritium and
> feed that into the already-occurring nuclear reaction. This by the way, is
> exactly how thermonuclear bombs (> 1 megaton yield) work too. Of course, a
> power plant is controlled whereas a bomb is most definitely not controlled.
>
> Because I know the next question, I'll answer it preemptively. It is
> impossible to create a H-bomb from a fusion plant. The H-bomb only occurs
> because it requires a smaller A-bomb to make it happen. No such amount of
> energy will ever be near a fusion power plant so the chances of a
> catastrophic explosion is practically impossible.
>
>         -Many engineers are recommending more R&D with this technology..
> Yes, and more R&D is more economic activity and more jobs.
>
>          -Is there a plan for handling waste from fusion--an
> engineering and political issue.
> DoE has some plans. But the main thing to note is the waste that comes
> from fusion is minute compared to fission power plants and also just
> regular hydrocarbon plants. If this is the only issue that hasn't been
> solved in this megaproject, I will consider that a great success.
>
>          -This technology is based on some fairly complex
> information which the lay person would not easily understand. Rulli might
> exploit this issue.
> Let him try to exploit it. I cannot sacrifice a positive vision and path
> forward for our fellow citizens because of a mouthpiece for extremism. I
> will gladly take his arrows so that our District prospers.
>
>           -There is room for common ground on nuclear technology between
> Dems and Rs. In the past year when we (some people from Marietta) met  with
> Bill Johnson's legislative director,  the latter  person made that point.
> It might be easier to find that common ground with the more easily
> understood fission technology, especially with the advancement of SMRs
> (small nuclear reactors).
> Yes, Gen-IV fission reactors are promising in the realm of fission. The
> government doesn't need to choose between "A or B" we can do both. Just
> like in WW2 when we developed bombers and aircraft carriers while also
> working on The A-Bomb, or in the 60s when we worked on the semiconductor
> chip and also sent a man to the moon. There are few "silver bullets" in
> life, but nuclear fusion is. If humanity solves fusion, I cannot overstate
> how prosperous we will become. It will, for all intents and purposes, be a
> miracle cure to our energy woes.
>
>     I really appreciated your remarks at the May 17 Washington County Dem
> dinner. You are a great campaigner and thoughtful policy maker. I just sent
> a small donation and hope to get a yard sign later today. Please let me
> know what else we can do to support your campaign.. I think we have a shot
> at flipping this seat from R to D. You're exciting a lot of voters here in
> Washington County with that prospect ,which we hope will come to fruition
> on June 11.
> Thank you sir. A megaproject like this will take work and consensus
> building to change the national narrative to get the country on board. But
> every journey begins with a single step and I intend to be the one in
> Congress to take that first step for our District and for our Republic.
>
> Respectfully,
> Michael L. Kripchak
> Democratic Candidate
> US Congress, OH-06
> www.kripchak.com
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 8:55 PM George Banziger <gbanziger497 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
>     Thanks for sending the (digital) summary of your article on fusion and
> the ITER project.
>
>      I have looked over your document and done a bit of research myself.
> Please regard this unsolicited message as one coming from a non-expert and
> from a serious supporter of your candidacy for the OH6 congressional seat.
>
>      I learned from your document that fusion has a large energy density
> (compared to other sources and to fission technology.) and there is some
> research in the US (Oak Ridge TN) on this topic. in the "highlights"
> section did you  mean to indicate $32 billion in *1945*?
>
>       I have also picked up and generated some cautions and criticisms of
> this strategy:
>
>       -What is the role of coal, a fossil fuel, (dangerous to mine,
> expensive, and polluting) in your plan?
>
>        --Fusion technology seems relatively new and expensive, as it has
> rolled out in the project in southeastern France. Its effectiveness has not
> yet been demonstrated, as far as I can see..
>
>        -Fusion seems to rely on combining deuterium and tritium, the
> latter of which seems to be in short supply.
>
>         -Many engineers are recommending more R&D with this technology..
>
>          -Is there a plan for handling waste from fusion--an
> engineering and political issue.
>
>          -This technology is based on some fairly complex
> information which the lay person would not easily understand. Rulli might
> exploit this issue.
>
>           -There is room for common ground on nuclear technology between
> Dems and Rs. In the past year when we (some people from Marietta) met  with
> Bill Johnson's legislative director,  the latter  person made that point.
> It might be easier to find that common ground with the more easily
> understood fission technology, especially with the advancement of SMRs
> (small nuclear reactors).
>
>     I really appreciated your remarks at the May 17 Washington County Dem
> dinner. You are a great campaigner and thoughtful policy maker. I just sent
> a small donation and hope to get a yard sign later today. Please let me
> know what else we can do to support your campaign.. I think we have a shot
> at flipping this seat from R to D. You're exciting a lot of voters here in
> Washington County with that prospect ,which we hope will come to fruition
> on June 11.
>
>
>
> George & Gwen Banziger; 740-434-5685; 740-434-3354 (mobile)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Green mailing list
> Green at fuusm.org
> http://fuusm.org/mailman/listinfo/green_fuusm.org
> _______________________________________________
> Green mailing list
> Green at fuusm.org
> http://fuusm.org/mailman/listinfo/green_fuusm.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fuusm.org/pipermail/green_fuusm.org/attachments/20240607/10316ae6/attachment.htm>